Virtuality of a nearly on-shell photon

  • Thread starter Thread starter muppet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photon
muppet
Messages
602
Reaction score
1
Hi all,

It was recently pointed out to me that the finite electron mass puts a lower bound on the Mandelstam variable t describing the square of the transferred momentum in the centre-of-mass frame, t_{min}=m_{e}^{2}.

This solved a problem I was worrying about (the finiteness of the tree-level approximation to elastic scattering), but gave me a new one to worry about.

I've often heard it said that whenever a photon leaves a radio-transmitter to be received by my radio, it must be slightly off-shell, simply by virtue of the fact that it's emitted and absorbed. But apparently the minimal virtuality of the photon is set by the electron mass, which corresponds to an energy in the gamma ray spectrum, right?

So if all of this is true, then why does classical electrodynamics describe radio waves well when the virtuality of a photon is vastly larger than its 3-momentum?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
muppet said:
Hi all,

It was recently pointed out to me that the finite electron mass puts a lower bound on the Mandelstam variable t describing the square of the transferred momentum in the centre-of-mass frame, t_{min}=m_{e}^{2}.
In which process? I doubt that this is true for all processes.

All low-energetic scattering processes have a small t.
 
Dammit... the claim was that this followed from the kinematics, recalling that ##t=(p_1-p_3)^2## and putting the external momenta on shell. However, checking the argument again, it looks as if the mass terms end up cancelling out. This is what I thought was the case originally, but the (quite senior) lecturer I was speaking to managed to convince me otherwise at the time. So now I'm back where I started with my original problem -namely, why does the cross-section you obtain from the t-channel Born approximation to the elastic scattering of two fermions (say) diverge?
 
smin>=me (as soon as an electron or positron is involved) is the only similar statement I see.
 
Yes, thanks for taking the time to reply.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Back
Top